Why the application of Florida's SYG statute is so wrong

[COLGATE4]

Listen to the voice of a well-respected retired Federal Judge, H. Lee Sarokin (in today's Huffington Post):

"Imagine this scenario: a man shoots and kills someone. He tells the police he was temporarily insane at the time. So they say "OK you can go home and take your gun with you," because they can't contradict his claim of insanity at the time of the killing. Ridiculous?...Am I missing something here? The only evidence of self-defense comes from the person who shot the victim. Doesn't he have a motive to lie?... What is undisputed is that George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Whether or not there is a valid defense to that shooting is not a determination to be made by police -- particularly when based solely on the word of the shooter.

It would be unfair to reach any conclusions about Mr. Zimmerman's guilt at this stage, but it is likewise unfair to Trayvon Martin and his family to find Zimmerman innocent. It sounds as though Mr. Zimmerman admitted the shooting, said it was self-defense, and the police accepted his version and sent him home with the gun used in the shooting! Suppose there is evidence that a man committed a murder and he claims to have an alibi -- and "there is no evidence to contradict the alibi"? Does he go free or is he charged and required to present competent and believable evidence of the alibi. The shooting here is admitted. Charges must be filed and the defense has to be proven -- not accepted based solely upon the version of the perpetrator."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/george-zimmerman-self-defense_b_1374135.html

Having the STATE required to prove that the DEFENDANT was not reasonably in fear for his life is the most ridiculous shifting of the traditional burden of proof one could imagine. It only leads to misinterpretations, intentional and otherwise of the intent of the statute which may well permit wrongdoers to walk free. Talk about "legal technicalities".

[enough]

1. This clearly expresses what is so nightmarish about the situation.

It's as if we have no laws, no judicial system, no due process, nothing.

[CAPHAVOC]

2. No witness

That leaves the case up to forensic examination and circumstantial evidence. Many Murders have no actual witnesses to the act. Here we know who shot who. What is the traditional burden of proof that you speak of? It is up to the state to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They always have the greater burden. That is the traditional burden. Do you argue for a change? Should the burden be shifted for the citizen to prove he is innocent? Or is it just for this one case?

[COLGATE4]

5. You're mistaken about burden of proof.

In traditional law, when a person commits homicide s/he can argue it was in self defense. That is what's known in the law as an affirmative defense, meaning that the accused doesn't argue about whether s/he did the act in question, but admits it and claims s/he was justified in doing it anyway. When you plead an affirmative defense (insanity is another good example) the burden shifts to you to prove it, not the State. I believe that the traditional method of burden of proof, which has stood the test of time very well should not have been completely stood on its head by the Florida Legislature. With this new burden of proof the State is put in the almost impossible position of proving a negative, i.e. that the perp had no reasonable cause to use self defense. Bad law, bad results.

[CAPHAVOC]

6. I see what you mean.

I learned something. But he would have to be charged with Homicide by the state first. In this case the State would be hard pressed to use the Sanford Police as State witnesses. They are on record and would actually be Defense witnesses. Also the Defense Lawyer has already said that Zimmerman will not use the stand your ground law in his defense if needed. If Zimmerman does not rely on the law what is your beef? The author of the law has said it does not apply here. Also I do not know if he would plead insanity but doubt he will. He would have to at least plead self defense. In the normal sense.
From what I can tell the Sanford Police tried to get a warrant from the DA for Florida Statute 782.11. It is a type of manslaughter. But Wolfinger the DA did not buy it. Now he has recused. Do you know anything about that?
This case sounds like a defense lawyers dream.

[saras]

3. The fact is that the Florida cops acted worse than the killer, and you can't fix that afterwards.

Zimmerman was a racist idiot drunk on hostility, who set himself up to do stupid evil things on impulse.

The police consciously and deliberately worked for hours, if not days, to help him get away with his murder.

Conspiracy charges can equally apply to not collecting evidence and to destroying it.

[COLGATE4]

4. That all may be true, but is yet to be

proven. My point was (and still is) that the way the Florida statute is written, along with the burden of proof shifting it provides for makes it a slam dunk for racist or otherwise dishonest cops to give the perp a "walk".

[CAPHAVOC]

9. Oh No!

Now you really have me thinking. Since you seem to know about this let me ask. If Zimmerman is charged in the case. Would he have to plead an affirmative self defense? Or could he just plead not guilty? If he pled Not Guilty then the Police reports and interviews and testimony would show they did not think they had probable cause because of self defense. Could he have the advantage of using self defense without the burden? If this makes any sense.

[COLGATE4]

10. No. The whole gist of my (and others') complaint

is precisely because the Fla SYG did away with the traditional self-defense=affirmative defense. Now, it's up to the State to prove that Zimmerman didn't have reason to reasonably fear for his life, which is why he blew the kid away. Lazy (or racist cops) and compliant local prosecutors use this to blow off an embarrassing case, which is what happened here. 'Looks like it was SYG to me - wasn't it, Zimmerman?" (wink,wink nod,nod) was probably the first leading question out of the detective's mouth when he arrived on scene. Zimmerman doesn't have to do squat under the FLA SYG law - only the State can with the almost insurmountable burden of proving to 12 of Zimmerman's Central Florida 'peers' that Zimmerman did not act reasonably. And there's no one to testify except Zimmerman. As the Church Lady used to say on SNL, "How convenient".

[CAPHAVOC]

15. Wow

So what do you think will happen. With the Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, and The Feds? And now I found out his Dad was a Judge up north. So he will not make any legal mistakes. Does he have to testify? Or can he just keep quiet? I just wonder who the prosecutor could call as a state witness?

[COLGATE4]

16. No, he doesn't have to testify. And I

would sure as hell do my best to see that he didn't. With Florida's new 'Make my Day' law, the burden is on the State to show that he didn't have a reasonable fear for his life when he fired the gun. Kind of hard seeing as there are no witnesses to the actual event and he's the only 'witness'. Before now I would have bet good money on his walking on this. However because of the firestorm that's developed around this case it may be that everyone in the loop in Florida, from Skeletor (Gov. Scott) on down wants this to go away asap, which may be enough to get him convicted of something. I wouldn't rule out some type of a manslaughter conviction, which could carry a far lighter penalty that murder.

[FiercelyIndependant]

14. That all sounds really evocative and all, but....

What are you basing any of that on?

"The police worked for hours, if not days, to help him get away with murder." Based on what exactly? What can you point to specifically to establish anything of the sort? I've been following the case quite closely and I've seen nothing at all reported that could even be twisted to form such a strange assertion.

"Conspiracy charges can equally apply to not collecting evidence and to destroying it." same basic question here...what are you Basing this notion that police ignored or destroyed evidence on exactly?

You don't strengthen the potential case against Zimmerman by injecting all sorts of fabricated notions into the discussion, in fact you go a long way to weakening it.

[slackmaster]

7. Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[COLGATE4]

11. What does that have to do with this case?

Are you suggesting that having to plead self-defense as we've done for literally hundreds of years is now a violation of Due Process?

[jpak]

8. It could happen over a parking space at the mall.

I will never set foot in FL again.

yup

[COLGATE4]

12. It damn well could. And

living in Central Florida has made me drive very differently. If some yahoo cuts me off and drives me almost into the ditch (2 weeks ago) I don't make a face or yell or try to stop him- all I need is for the asshole to decide that I've reasonably put him in 'fear for his life" and I'll get a 9mm stuck in my ear. Talk about 'defensive driving'!! Note: just found this posting on DU which points to almost exactly that scenario here in the Tampa Bay area.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/the-stand-your-ground-laws-sad-florida-legacy/1203433

[Redneck Democrat]

13. It's "Stand Your Ground," NOT "Move Your Cop-Wannabe Ass!"

Rec.